focus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions token budgeting and output formats but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, or detail authorization needs or side effects. It partially describes output but lacks full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by a clear list of parameters with brief explanations, and useful examples. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and provides examples. It is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., if the repo needs to be watched) and clarify the default repo_path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides essential meaning for most parameters: query, max_tokens, exclude_dirs, output_format. The repo_path parameter is not explained, but it has a default. The description adds significant value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'get[s] task-scoped context' and lists the types of information returned (symbols, callers/callees, complexity warnings, related files). It distinguishes itself from siblings by its task-focused scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'diff_context' or 'prepare_context'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides examples (e.g., 'authentication middleware') and implies it should be used when working on a specific task. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.